Lefebrivists demand (2nd Vatican) Council be “corrected,” not interpreted

CNA ^ | October 30, 2007

[NYer]

Rome, Oct 30, 2007 / 01:05 pm (CNA).- In an interview with Italian journalist Paolo Luigi Rodari, the author of the blog “Palazzo Apostolico,” Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, said the schismatic movement demands not only a “correct interpretation” of Vatican II, but that the Council documents actually be changed.

Fellay defended his fellow excommunicated bishop, Ricard Williamson, identified by some in the media as leader of the “intransigent wing” of the fraternity.  Fellay said, “Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to the Church as it currently is.”

“The reasons are simple,” Fellay said, because “Benedict XVI has liberalized the ancient rite,” yet he has been criticized “by the majority of the bishops.”  “What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?” he said.

“In addition to the ancient rite,” he continued, “the problem for us is the words Pope Benedict has dedicated to Vatican II,” because “the rupture with the past is directly related, unfortunately, to some texts of Vatican II and these texts, in some way, should be revised.”

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation),” Fellay went on.  He cited as an example the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.  According to Fellay, the document subjects the Church to the authority of the State. “In my opinion it should be the opposite: the State should submit to the Catholic faith and recognize that it is the religion of the State.”

Fellay said he has maintained ongoing correspondence with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, “but no common working document exists yet.”  “I remain confident, however, because all of our contact up to this point has been excellent,” he said.

[NYer]

This time, it’s not me saying it but Bernard Fellay.

[ArrogantBustard]

“What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?”

Fascinating choice of words, there.

[wideawake]

Fellay and Williamson are clowns, pure and simple.

They think that they can dictate rules for a Church to which they do not belong.

[Frank Sheed]

Fellay defended his fellow excommunicated bishop, Ricard Williamson, identified by some in the media as leader of the “intransigent wing” of the fraternity. Fellay said, “Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to the Church as it currently is.”

Bye!

Various Councils of the Church have been enormous successes and others have been flops. Some have been implemented fully and others have died in the breach. The Church will have to wait 200 years before the fruit borne by Vatican II is fully known. The Holy Spirit is leading the way. Whither He goeth, we must follow.

[Pyro7480]

There has been speculation on whether the word he used was “re-enter.” If it was, isn’t it an admission on his part that they’re at least not entirely in union with the Catholic Church?

[Frank Sheed]

Ummmmmmm, yup!

[Unam Sanctam]

...he has been criticized “by the majority of the bishops.”

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that a "majority" of bishops have criticized the Motu Proprio. A few have, and a few seem to be misinterpreting it, based on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's site, but I see no evidence that a majority are critical or are even opposed to its implementation. Boy, these people are whiners. Get a "stable group" together and petition a priest in full communion with the successor of Peter. Take advantage of the Motu Proprio rather than forever whining about the duly constituted authorities in the Church (the Pope has supreme governance of the Church under Vatican I, which these people apparently dissent from as much as Vatican II).

According to Fellay, the [Vatican II] document subjects the Church to the authority of the State.

It says no such thing. I would prefer an interpretation of the Vatican II documents according to an hermeneutic of continuity by the Pope and Magisterium rather than the tendentious and bad faith interpretation of these people. And Catholic teaching has always been that a council of bishops in communion with the successor of Peter and presided over or affirmed by him is part of the Magisterium of the Church. These people simply want to pick and choose. And while a Catholic confessional state might be the ideal, to raise this to an absolute requirement of the deposit of faith is to ignore that the Church has flourished and can flourish in many different socio-political systems, and that there is a strong prudential component to how society is to be structured, so long as the freedom of the Church is ensured and the common good is served.

[marshmallow]

“The reasons are simple,” Fellay said, because “Benedict XVI has liberalized the ancient rite,” yet he has been criticized “by the majority of the bishops.” “What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?” he said.

Wimp. He sounds like Rodney Dangerfield; "I can't get no respect".

So the goal posts have moved. Previously it was "free up the Tridentine Rite". Now it's "OK, the Tridentine Rite has been de-indulted, but quit insulting us!" Poor baby! Welcome to our world, Bishop. Those of us who've remained within the Church have had to put up with insults for nigh on 40 years. We've been fighting loony catechesis, rotten liturgies, and heretical homilies from within and getting our faces slapped in the process. Too bad you're too precious to come join us. Oh sorry, that's right, we're collaborators.

If ever there was a lame excuse for staying on the outer, this is it. Totally lacking in credibility. The real truth is that this has nothing to do with the Pope and the Catholic Church and everything to do with SSPX internal politics. Fellay and Williamson are not on the same page, despite what Fellay says. He's trying to buy time.

Sorry bishop, the saint doesn't walk off in a huff. He takes the insults gladly for love of God and the Church and offers them up to God.

I sure hope that this is a mistranslation or something.

[NYer]

So the goal posts have moved.

He will never be satisfied, until VCII is overturned by the Church, the NO totally abandoned and the TLM fully restored, because that is the 'world' of his Church and he believe it is the authentic one. The longer one remains in schism, the more difficult it is to return.

[Cheverus]

I think we will see John Hepworth (former Catholic Priest now Archbishop of the TAC) re-enter the Church long before this guy.

He’s sounding more and more like Patricia Fessen.....and the the Bishopettes

[netmilsmom]

>>Those of us who’ve remained within the Church have had to put up with insults for nigh on 40 years. <<

I’m gonna give ya a big AMEN on that!!!

[Frank Sheed]

Councils are not overturned. They may NOT be implemented (over time), they may be second guessed through encyclicals, they may be slowly reversed, they may just drop off the chart. They are not “anathematized” to my knowledge; they can become irrelevant.

This is putting the goal post on the moon and saying we can’t get there from here (someone actually told me that once when I asked for directions!).

F

[Frank Sheed]

Fr. Z. speaks!

31 October 2007

Is Bp. Fellay saying the SSPX is “outside the Church”?

CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:17 am

In a CNA story we read the following:

My emphases and comments:

Lefebrivists [sic] demand Council be “corrected,” not interpreted


Rome, Oct 30, 2007 / 01:05 pm (CNA).- In an interview with Italian journalist Paolo Luigi Rodari, the author of the blog “Palazzo Apostolico,” Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, said the schismatic movement demands not only a “correct interpretation” of Vatican II, but that the Council documents actually be changed. [Right.  That’s gonna happen.]

Fellay defended his fellow excommunicated bishop, Ricard Williamson, identified by some in the media as leader of the “intransigent wing” of the fraternity.  Fellay said, “Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to [sic] the Church as it currently is.”

“The reasons are simple,” Fellay said, because “Benedict XVI has liberalized the ancient rite,” yet he has been criticized “by the majority of the bishops.”  “What should we do? Re-enter the Church just to be insulted by these people?” he said.  [Because it’s all about us.]

“In addition to the ancient rite,” he continued, “the problem for us is the words Pope Benedict has dedicated to Vatican II,” because “the rupture with the past is directly related, unfortunately, to some texts of Vatican II and these texts, in some way, should be revised.”

“Ratzinger should prepare for a direct revision of the Council texts and not just denounce their incorrect hermeneutic (interpretation),” Fellay went on.  He cited as an example the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.  [I have maintained for a long time that this is the single biggest problem with them.] According to Fellay, the document subjects the Church to the authority of the State. “In my opinion it should be the opposite: the State should submit to the Catholic faith and recognize that it is the religion of the State.” 

Fellay said he has maintained ongoing correspondence with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, “but no common working document exists yet.”  “I remain confident, however, because all of our contact up to this point has been excellent,” he said.

 

A couple cautious observations can be made… and I mean cautious.

First, if Fellay can speak about "reentering" then that suggests he thinks they are "outside" the Church in some way.  I would like to hear the French of that statement.  Still, there is some phrase involving "outside the Church… something something something something" rattling around in my memory… what could it be?

Second, Fellay does not dispute that Vatican II was a Council of the Church.  Some on the hard right do.

Third, a Pope can require changes to the documents of Councils before he ratifies and promulgates them.   Is Fellay verging on assuming to himself the prerogatives of Popes?  That is, does he think that he is the one with the charism in the Church to decided how the documents of Councils should be changed?

Fourth, what’s with the deal about being insulted?  

Finally, when the late Archbishop, a great man in his day and a great missionary, took his bat and ball and went home to Econe, he left many people still in the Church to carry out a long and difficult task of promoting from within the Church the older form of Mass and the spirituality that flows from it. 

They are the people who truly endured the insults.

If Bp. Fellay really thinks that before the SSPX can reenter the Church, the Roman Pontiff must correct Council documents, then I wonder if they really have any serious desire to "reenter the Church".  

It sounds as if he has thrown out a proposition that he knows is a non-starter.

[NYer]

If Bp. Fellay really thinks that before the SSPX can reenter the Church, the Roman Pontiff must correct Council documents, then I wonder if they really have any serious desire to "reenter the Church".

When I posited that remark recently, I was unmercifully attacked. He left the Church 40 years ago and is now comfortable with its organization. Pray for him and his followers.

[vladimir998]

“Williamson and I are in agreement that it would be difficult to re-enter to the Church as it currently is.”

These men are not Catholic.

[Ozone34]

Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism
Catholics who attend SSPX masses not schismatic

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410

[livius]

I think the SSPX is way on the self-indulgent side, personally, and I do not think they were as heroic as the people who stayed in the Church and kept pushing for the Old Rite and the True Faith - and suffered greviously as a result.

However, as for VatII, while earlier councils may have been slow and chaotic in implementation, I don’t think any of them led to a collapse on the scale of the VII collapse. It may not be purely a situation of post hoc, propter hoc (since many other disruptive things were happening in the world at that time), but on the other hand, one cannot deny the fact that VII has been invoked by all the people in the last 40 years who have wanted or tried to destroy the Faith.

VatII, however, was a pastoral council and not a doctrinal council. This means that the documents were, to some extent, advisory. I’m not sure to what extent they were officially promulgated, because they weren’t meant to legislate. Even the Novus Ordo was not mandated by them, but came into existence after the Council. The documents are very vague and fuzzy and I think they actually could stand a review. So I don’t think this is a bad point.

However, Fellay certainly doesn’t have the right to demand anything on this level, nor does he have the right to impose the conditions. From what I’ve read about him, I’m actually a little surprised that his statement would be this extreme.

[Frank Sheed]

When I posited that remark recently, I was unmercifully attacked.

So was Jesus, NYer. He only told the Truth and you will find Him on the intersection of two wooden beams. Flannery O'Connor, a great Catholic novelist, had it right: "“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd.” That is the opinion of most people about someone who speaks real Truth...that they are odd or out of sync with the rest of humanity.

[NYer]

Finally, when the late Archbishop, a great man in his day and a great missionary, took his bat and ball and went home to Econe, he left many people still in the Church to carry out a long and difficult task of promoting from within the Church the older form of Mass and the spirituality that flows from it. 

They are the people who truly endured the insults.

Father Z is absolutely right. Those who remained faithful to the Magisterium while supporting a restoration of the TLM through prayer and sacrifice, are the ones who endured ... and continue to do so ... the insults of those bishops and priests who have defied its restoration. Those who followed Fellay enjoyed the beauty of the Tridentine Rite outside the Catholic Church. Are they not 'protestants'?